Linux 4.2-rc1 Is One of the Largest Kernel Releases of Recent Times

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux 4.2-rc1 Is One of the Largest Kernel Releases of Recent Times

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 5, 2015 @03:00PM from the check-it-out dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Linus Torvalds ended the Linux 4.2 kernel merge window today by releasing Linux 4.2-rc1. He quickly wrote, "I thought this release would be one of the biggest ones ever, but it turns out that it will depend on how you count." By most metrics, Linux 4.2 is shaping up to be a very large release. Linux 4.2 is bringing plenty of new features including the new 'AMDGPU' kernel graphics driver, Intel Broxton support, NCQ TRIM improvements, F2FS file-system encryption, new ARM CPU/board support, Renesas R8/300 arch support, and many other additions.

110 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:04 · Score: -1

Is the kernel configurable? Can one be reducing it through selective compile? How is one doing that?
Yippeeeee!!!!!!! I got first post!!!
1. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by armanox · 2015-07-05 15:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The same way it has always been done - unpack it, move into the directory, and use "make menuconfig" for a nice easy menu system to pick the parts that you want. If you really want to trim things down only compile in the options you need and remove loadable modules (useful in some setups).
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
2. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  "oldconfig" also works, if you've already done the menuconfig tango a couple of times.
3. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Is the kernel configurable? Can one be reducing it through selective compile? How is one doing that?
  Yippeeeee!!!!!!! I got first post!!!
  How should a post that is both informative and trolling at the same time be modded?
  I do not want to waste up my mod points either way on this one.
4. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  How should a post that is both informative and trolling at the same time be modded?
  I do not want to waste up my mod points either way on this one.
  The universe itself cannot deal with such a post. It is better to pretend that it does not exist.
5. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Bing+Tsher+E · 2015-07-05 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Since it's informative only in a really, really trivial way ( even *I* know about ./make menuconfig and I haven't built a linux kernel since about 1998) it can just be squelched.
6. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by techno-vampire · 2015-07-05 17:17 · Score: 2
  
  Just to pick a nit, unless you have a copy of make in the same directory as the kernel source, it's make meuconfig that you'd be running.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
7. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  To clarify for those who don't know, "big" is referring to the amount of changes since the last release, and has nothing to do with the size of the kernel.
8. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Viol8 · 2015-07-05 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  "If you really want to trim things down only compile in the options you need"
  That might have been possibly by one person 10 years ago, but these days by the time you've finished setting up all the compile options manually you'll be ready to collect your pension. Assuming you hadn't died of boredom already.
9. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just to pick a nit, it's make menuconfig that you'd be running.
10. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  ?
  I'm not by any means a Kernel guru, it took me 20 hours to trim down my kernel, removing any devices and features I didn't need and still have a bootable, problem free system. From about 1,5GB of drivers to 140MB.
  I read the help for every option that I didn't understand completely, google helped with the rest that didn't have any help info or was too cryptic for me.
  Granted, a fast system helps so you don't wait forever to compile, but it's far from a clusterfuck like you make it out to be. You don't need to critique every single options.
11. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Why isn't there an option for drivers to auto-detect what hardware you have and by default add only those devices? About 15 years ago when I used to care about compiling my own kernels, I typically missed a driver or two mainly because I didn't realized I had that hardware. Always some obscure chipset driver or something I didn't realize I needed.
12. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  This is what modules do for e.g. PCI devices. You can compile them all, and only the ones that are detected will get actually loaded. For other devices, this is a lot harder. On ARM for example, people use a device tree to tell the kernel what device is located where - simply because a lot of those are not auto-detectable at all (and can change location from one ARM system to the next).
  
  Detecting everything on a system automatically and selecting the appropriate driver at kernel config time would be very difficult...
13. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Sloppy · 2015-07-06 00:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It sounds like the project you want [someone] to start, does this: reads a config file, looks at what modules ended up actually getting loaded, and then enables/disables config options, writes a new config file. Then your subsequent compiles can be faster and your /lib/modules can be smaller.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
14. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Viol8 · 2015-07-06 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Oh only 20 hours, well thats alright them. I mean who doesn't have 20 hours spare to sit in front of a console typing Y/N/M a couple of thousand times?
15. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by gmack · 2015-07-06 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I can do it in less than an hour but reserve that for machines that need special options (SCTP etc) or rare drivers not supported bu the distro kernels.
16. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by gmack · 2015-07-06 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I find it's faster to use GIT than download and unpack a whole new kernel.
17. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  It takes 20 minutes if you know what you're doing, and this is usually only required the first time you compile for your specific hardware.
  If you don't know what you're doing and RTFM for every option figuring out what you specifically require could take about 20 hours. Seems reasonable to me. Like installing Windows.
18. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by khellendros1984 · 2015-07-06 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Because it sucks when you realize that you don't have enough USB ports to plug in the full variety of external hardware that you might want to use in the system, and that'd be a goofy requirement anyhow. Either you have to plug in all the hardware you want to support, or you're back to enabling hardware one piece at a time manually in the kernel configuration.
  
  Basically, it's a neat concept, but it might not be practical, and if you're at the point where you want/need to compile your own kernel, then it's reasonable to assume that you *will* know what hardware is in your machine, that you'll do the research to figure it out, or at least that you'll discover it by trial and error.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
19. Re: Kernel size and compile reduction by streamingradioguide · 2015-07-06 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Free" Linux is starting to sound pretty expensive.
20. Re:Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  Rather, you'd be running 'make' with 'menuconfig' as an option.
21. Re: Kernel size and compile reduction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-07 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  Installing windows takes like 30 minutes, requires nothing but your user settings. Very stupid people do this without reading any manual.
  If it blue screens during setup, it's confirmation of defective hardware. Otherwise, it just works for nearly all consumer devices at time of release.
  Unless you meant configuration and app install, which is still far simpler with wintoolkit or NTLITE and things like ninite and chocolaty to install apps.
  I really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Windows is pretty damn easy to install.
Please please stop with the MONOLITH by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:51 · Score: 0

YEs, we can make modules out of it... BUT why do it first. Trim it down to base functions with module system services from the start (example AMDGPU or SSD)?
Tried of the broken promise of GNU/LINUX to be able to run on old hardware. 386 software was 686 only code in them. 128MB system, you cannot even run a compiler on! What happened to pipes??
1. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by basecastula+ · 2015-07-05 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Just use an old kernel like everybody else.
2. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by Bing+Tsher+E · 2015-07-05 16:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The oldest commercially-built Linux kernel I have only has CDROM support for proprietary things like the Sound Blaster Pro and the old proprietary 1x Mitsumi CDROM drive. I guess I have Slackware floppy diskette images tucked away that are that old, too.
  Those 0.99 builds are small kernels. They'd run on a 386sx motherboard with 2M of memory. I should put one in a box and see how it spins for old times sake.
  It would be fun to see how it would scale to modern hardware, like, say, a Pentium 233 box.
3. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  Tried of the broken promise of GNU/LINUX to be able to run on old hardware. 386 software was 686 only code in them. 128MB system, you cannot even run a compiler on!
  We've got better compilers that support newer languages and more language features targeting more architectures as well as more aggressive optimizations and we have the processing power to be able to do it.
  If you have a problem with that for some reason then just run an older kernel with an older compiler that doesn't support those things. What I'm tired of is the know-nothings that bitch and whine about how we have more system resources and are using those resources to do more things rather than just doing the same thing and throwing newer hardware at it to make it faster.
4. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 20:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If you think a 233 MHz Pentium is modern hardware just wait until you hear what kind of processing power they can put into mobile phones these days. It'll blow your mind!
5. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  If you want support for it maintain it.
  No one else wants it apparently, so no one is maintaining it.
6. Re: Please please stop with the MONOLITH by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  A P233 is new hardware to an 0.99 kernel. That was the point.
7. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by JackieBrown · 2015-07-06 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  It won't. The driver support won't be there
8. Re:Please please stop with the MONOLITH by khellendros1984 · 2015-07-06 08:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  386 is supported up to the 3.7 kernel, and the 3.8 kernel was widely announced (and designed) to break 386 support. I've got an ARM system with 128MB of RAM, and it runs GCC 4.2 just fine. I can't imagine that an X86 version would be *that* much heavier that it wouldn't run. Of course, if I try to compile large, modern projects (with output binaries in the hundreds of MB, sometimes), it goes to swap *really* darned fast, but what did you expect? If I'm compiling the size of project that will actually run in the amount of RAM available on the system, without swapping, it works just fine.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Testing : 13, now 20% off! by d4l3k · 2015-07-05 15:55 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Testing : 13, now 20% off!
Does it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:58 · Score: -1

Still have support for that one asshole running an FDDI card on an EISA bus? Spend $20 already and buy a PCI replacement you cheap motherfucker. Whatever you're using it for is not that critical, seriously.
1. Re:Does it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Still have support for that one asshole running an FDDI card on an EISA bus? Spend $20 already and buy a PCI replacement you cheap motherfucker. Whatever you're using it for is not that critical, seriously.
  It's not about using FDDI card on a EISA bus .. it's about sending a message.
2. Re:Does it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  did you miss the code of conduct? NOBODY CAN BE OFFENDED EVER.
  That means EISA FDDI will be around for another 30 years, if not longer.
3. Re:Does it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  ... over FDDI.
4. Re:Does it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  You OFFEND me with this post.
  Support for EISA FDDI must be kept forever
5. Re:Does it by GuB-42 · 2015-07-06 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  If that one asshole as you say it is an active kernel developer he has the right to include support for whatever the fuck he wants, that's the whole point of the Linux development model. As long as it is disabled at compile time, it won't affect you.
Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:10 · Score: -1

Systemd is causing massive bloat in Linux. If Linux continue to use systemd will be leading to doom for Linux.
If Linux cannot keep sizes small just be using Windows 10.
Can anyone be telling reasons for staying with Linux?
1. Re: Systemd by buchanmilne · 2015-07-05 16:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "Systemd is causing massive bloat in Linux."
  One of the main objectives of systemd is to take advantage of linux-specific features (such as cgroups) that existed before systemd did.
  The servers I am building at present have a minimum of 256GB ram, I couldn't care about a few MB of "bloat", what I *do* care about is resource limits at various levels, which cgroups gives me and systemd makes useable but default.
  if you were trolling, you're the worst systemd troll I've seen this year.
2. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like something Solaris has had forever.
3. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:16 · Score: -1
  
  Linux usually runs headless because it still has shit for GUI even after all these years. That means the OS must be operable since it's not hidden under a layer of widgets like Windows. Linux (kernel) + SystemD + Bash and GNU utilities make Linux a great overall system!
4. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  And sun went bankrupt. Funny how those features weren't actually stable, or wanted after people found out how unstable and expensive they were to run.
5. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  The equivalent in the kernel is kdbus. Heard that the developers of kdbus are not listening to people as usual.
6. Re: Systemd by exomondo · 2015-07-05 18:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The equivalent in the kernel is kdbus. Heard that the developers of kdbus are not listening to people as usual.
  Well the point of free software is to do things you need and contribute that back so other people can use it, do things out of charity or get paid by people to do those things. If those "people" want to pay the kdbus developers to do what they want then fine but outside of that there's no real need or reason they would listen to what other people want them to do.
7. Re: Systemd by Endymion · 2015-07-05 20:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What, exactly, are these linux-specific features that systemd supposedly makes available? You certainly don't need systemd to use cgroups, which were usable before systemd tried to monopolize the project.
  "Usability" is personal opinion, and if you find systemd's management of cgroups management to be easier than the other options, than use it; we don't *have* to agree on such details, thanks to the flexibility of Free Software.. After all, the usability of a tool depends on what your particular goals and requirements.
  So please,, stop spreading the misinformation and revisionist history that has is popular with many systemd advocates. Very few of the commonly stated benefits of systemd are new, and most were available - and in use - before systemd showed up.- it just became popular to ignore history and existing projects.
  Oh, and iff you were trolling, then this is a sadly a typical example of systemd apparatchik: repeating popular misconception, arguments based on the projection of personal requirements and opinions, and quick to throw around moral accusations and insults. The person you were replying to may be a bit misguided and hyperbolic, they are not entirely wrong, either.
  
  --
  Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
8. Re:Systemd by thegarbz · 2015-07-05 21:19 · Score: 2
  
  Can anyone be telling reasons for staying with Linux?
  Nope, none what so ever. Please install windows and resign from every online discussion about Linux for every. Don't even bother looking at Linux again. We have nothing here for you.
9. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  Can anyone be telling reasons for staying with Linux?
  Nope, none what so ever. Please install windows and resign from every online discussion about Linux for every. Don't even bother looking at Linux again. We have nothing here for you.
  Wow, you're an asshole, thegarbz.
10. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 22:02 · Score: -1
  
  Systemd is causing massive bloat in Linux. If Linux continue to use systemd will be leading to doom for Linux.
  If Linux cannot keep sizes small just be using Windows 10.
  Can anyone be telling reasons for staying with Linux?
  The linux "community" that we used to envision doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of asshole developers who don't give a fuck about anyone else but themselves. Selfish little pricks that wouldn't help an old lady cross the street. You think they'll give you reasons to stay? Ha! What you'll get is a middle finger.
11. Re: Systemd by DNS-and-BIND · 2015-07-05 22:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  See, arguments like this are precisely why people like me quit contributing to open source projects a long time ago. It's just the "fuck you" attitude that gets to us. When users demand features, you are supposed to listen. But nope, this stock answer is trotted out every time as a way to avoid doing work.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
12. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be so tough on him. When he says "we", I took it in the context of the kid that gets picked last in gym class and declares - ""We" are going to kick your ass."
13. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 22:57 · Score: 0
  
  When users demand features, you are supposed to listen.
  If there's a reason to.
14. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  > When users demand features, you are supposed to listen
  Paying users, sure.
  The developers have their own things they want to do.
  Why should they take time from that to do what you want?
15. Re: Systemd by ChrisMaple · 2015-07-06 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sun was pissing away an enormous pile of cash. Oracle bought out Sun before the money ran out, so Sun did not go bankrupt.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
16. Re:Systemd by ChrisMaple · 2015-07-06 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's lusers like you that make many developers bitter.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
17. Re: Systemd by Eravnrekaree · 2015-07-06 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  The fact is, systemd doesnt force anything on you. You are free to start your jobs from SysV scripts just as before. Systemd also follows a highly modular architecture and design that fits in with the Unix philosophy. So its not a big monolithic thing. So, I don't see what the problem is. Systemd is fine by me and I see no issue as it only adds additional capability rather than takes them away. Since it does not take away any features, basically what you are arguing for is that people should not be allowed to have Systemd's features or be able to use them. Ironically its people like you who make the accusation that you are being put upon, when in fact Systemd has taken nothing away from you, it does not prevent you from starting your jobs just as you do now as it fully supports the older mechanisms and is backward compatible. The bottom line is if you dont like the new mechanisms, systemd lets you use the old ones.
18. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's lusers like you that make many developers bitter.
  Good. They can take their ball and go home, like the spoiled little brat that they are.
19. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously. There's no reason to pick on Jar Jar Binks like that.
20. Re: Systemd by F.Ultra · 2015-07-06 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  What didn't they listen to? AFAIK Linus will not merge kdbus if that where the case.
21. Re: Systemd by Endymion · 2015-07-06 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Systemd doesn't force anything on me because I don't use it, and have a much more stable system because of it. If I werre to run systemd, it *absolutely does* force an increasing number of policy decisions and questionable quality code on me.
  This is what I meant when I said about how apparatchik tend to their personal requirements and opinions on to others. You are making a failure of induction, by assuming that just because you haven't personally seen any problems with systemd,, those problems must not exist. Systemd makes major policy decisions that are probably not going to get in the way of "most"1 people, but it definitely gets in the way. Oh, and who said anything about "SysV scripts"? You do know that "init" is only a tiny portion of systemd, right? Moist of the problem with systemd have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "starting jobs".
  Of course, with all that crap about systemd being a modular design (it's not - modular doesn't refer to how many binaries it compiles into) - which is only part of the unix philosophy - and blatant falsehoods ("doesn't take away any feature"), you're clearly either as a troll, shill, or useful idiot. I normally wouldn't bother feeding such nonsense, but....
  The main reason I'm replying is to point out that the serious reading comprehension issue: you seem to have:
  
  basically what you are arguing for is that people should not be allowed to have Systemd's features or be able to use them.
  No, that isn't what I said at all, and it say a lot about you systemd apparatchik that you have to lie and misrepresent anyone who criticizes systemd into being a "hater" trying to suppress anything ("not allowed"). That has never been the case.. If you had actually read my post, you might have noticed I specifically said that if systemd works better for you or is just nicier in some way, then use it. I'm glad you found software that works better for you. Maybe you culd you show your fellow Linux users some courtesy and refrain from making up lies and accusations about anybody that doesn't run systemd?
  My main thesis wasn't even about system directly, and instead address the misconception that features (such as cgroups) were somehow unavailable without systemd (either today or in the past).
  
  --
  Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
22. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  That kdbus is not a performance improvement over existing forms of in-kernel IPC due to the details of its ABI alone; and that because of the mechanics its ABI specifies it's also not much good as an IPC mechanism in itself.
  However its developers are hell-bent on getting their little bridgehead into the kernel so that udev's comms can be wired into kdbus. This would eliminate non-systemd distributions from the GNU/Linux ecosystem altogether.
23. Re: Systemd by segedunum · 2015-07-06 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  By the same token kernel developers are free to keep rejecting kdbus if it doesn't meet their needs or expectations.
24. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  When users demand features, you are supposed to listen.
  If there's a reason to.
  There's always a reason.
  That reason is that if you alienate enough users, you'll find yourself patting yourself on the back in an empty auditorium.
  Equally true if you refuse to add features that users demand or if you refuse to change/remove features that they don't want.
25. Re: Systemd by ultranova · 2015-07-06 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's just the "fuck you" attitude that gets to us. When users demand features, you are supposed to listen. But nope, this stock answer is trotted out every time as a way to avoid doing work.
  
  But it's not work. The developers are free to listen to you, and they're also free to ignore you. You aren't their boss. Refusing to treat you like you were isn't "fuck you". You just took it that way because getting rejected is humiliating and you didn't want to admit you misunderstood the situation.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
26. Re: Systemd by F.Ultra · 2015-07-06 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  That is not the same thing as "the developers are not listening to people", it's simply the open questions from the code reviewers that needs to be addressed if kdbus will have a chance of being included. I.e business as usual.
  And of course the devs are hell-bent to get it included, when was the last time that you wrote kernel code without caring if it would be included or not?
27. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if you don't want to use it you're basically stuck custom compiling gentoo at this point.
28. Re: Systemd by khellendros1984 · 2015-07-06 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because a project thrives when it has users interested in it and (more importantly) using it. Projects that don't give users what they want, or which start doing things that users *don't* want will lose their mindshare to another project. Now, if it's just a case of developers scratching an itch and having users doesn't matter, then that's different, of course.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
29. Re: Systemd by exomondo · 2015-07-06 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  See, arguments like this are precisely why people like me quit contributing to open source projects a long time ago. It's just the "fuck you" attitude that gets to us. When users demand features, you are supposed to listen. But nope, this stock answer is trotted out every time as a way to avoid doing work.
  No that's absolute rubbish! Just because you release code as open source doesn't mean you then have an obligation to do whatever the users of that code demand of you.
30. Re: Systemd by exomondo · 2015-07-06 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  By the same token kernel developers are free to keep rejecting kdbus if it doesn't meet their needs or expectations.
  Yes, of course. And distro maintainers and users are free to keep rejecting systemd if they don't like it.
31. Re: Systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  Users don't know what they need, only what they want, and most want something that seems cool over functionality. There's probably a nice bell curve of good popular projects, but there's always some horrible popular projects along with great unpopular projects.
32. Re: Systemd by DNS-and-BIND · 2015-07-06 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  Humiliation? WTF? How's that work? It's not humiliating, it's frustrating. Like I said, it's the "you're not my boss, fuck you" attitude that really turns people away. The attitude you just displayed right there. Are you a developer on any open source projects?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
33. Re: Systemd by ultranova · 2015-07-07 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Humiliation? WTF? How's that work? It's not humiliating, it's frustrating.
  
  Neither is appropriate for when people refuse to care about your orders because you don't have any authority over them. You aren't paying so you aren't in any position to demand features, or anything else.
  
  Like I said, it's the "you're not my boss, fuck you" attitude that really turns people away.
  
  It's not "you're not my boss, fuck you" but "you're not my boss, so stop giving me orders". Altough I suppose "fuck you" could very quickly follow if you refused to take the hint.
  
  The attitude you just displayed right there. Are you a developer on any open source projects?
  
  So disagreeing with you is "fuck you" to you? Seriously?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
34. Re: Systemd by WorBlux · 2015-07-08 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  And these policy decision are? And are they due to a clear clack of viable alternative mechanism? From what I understand systemD only has a small number of hard dependencies (even if you consider each module separately. , Smaller even that to old bare-bones init to multiuser
diversity by swell · 2015-07-05 16:20 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Judging by the names of the contributors there are people from around the world. By 'people' I mean men, males, not females. Shouldn't there be a law that requires 50% female participation in the open software movement? We take Google, Microsoft & Apple to task for their lack of diversity ... what about us?
In case you are irony impaired, this is an observation that has more to do with the real world than the world of open or any other software. Women seem to have other priorities.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
1. Re:diversity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:38 · Score: -1
  
  Chairman Pao will bring diversity to all. There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
2. Re:diversity by Bringer128 · 2015-07-05 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  I know you're trolling, and I shouldn't bite, but I'm just going to leave this here: https://t.co/g2o2hTkjZQ
3. Re:diversity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  People who are offended by words of a few morons really shouldn't participate. Everyone gets some shit thrown at them at times. However, when people like her get the ire of dozens/hundreds/thousands, it's usually when they've refused to own criticism they've received and played victim instead.
4. Re:diversity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck with that law and in which country(ies) would you apply it?
  Generally women are under represented in STEM, hopefully this is changing.
  You would also need to look at the changes logs for more than a single release to get a representative percentage of women contributors.
  You would also need to look at the subsystem maintainers as they may not be in a purely development role for example: Sarah Sharp.
5. Re:diversity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  That woman isn't a dev anymore. She's a SJW pretending to be one.
6. Re:diversity by hugetoon · 2015-07-05 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to hear that.
  I hope our civilization will overcome this sad situation before going extinct.
7. Re:diversity by swell · 2015-07-06 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well yes, I suppose you are irony impaired. Or maybe the ACs who replied don't know the meaning of the word irony:
  "noun: irony
  the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
  Do you take that to mean that I believe 50% should be women? Can you not see the last sentence? Sorry you are so impaired. Maybe you should go back to Reddit.
  
  --
  ...omphaloskepsis often...
8. Re:diversity by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  I think that's a wonderful idea. We should pass laws mandating female participation in the sciences. Starting in grade school, we'll select the appropriate number of girls to close the gap and assign them to a science track in their education. In adulthood, following their educations, they'll be assigned positions in appropriately-technical fields. If people don't choose equal representation within specific fields, then equal representation must be thrust upon them. Similarly, I'm looking forward to increased male participation in the child education process, female participation in the "sanitation engineer" industry, etc.
  
  When every profession (or at least every industry) has equal gender representation forced upon it, it will become the social norm relatively quickly, and it won't have to be mandated from that point; we'll be able to restore the illusion of personal choice in terms of career.
kdbus, where are you? by eyepeepackets · 2015-07-05 16:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

Still no kdbus, oy vey Jose. So what's it gonna take, three pretty, prancing blondes wearing sandwich boards and high heels marching in lock step in front of the White House? What do the sandwich boards say, you ask?
"The twenty-second century is screaming down the pipe and we've no KDBUS!"
"Hurry the fuck up with the KDBUS already!"
"Yo mamma needs her KDBUS too!"

--
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
1. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Microlith · 2015-07-05 16:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/l...
  They held off for a release.
2. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Look boys, it's one of them systemd folk. Time to warm up the tar!
3. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot/Phoronix told you to expect no KDBUS a while ago didn't it?
  http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/04/27/0341226/linux-41-bringing-many-changes-but-no-kdbus
  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=KDBUS-Missing-Linux-4.1
  That said, bring on the pretty prancing blondes already!
4. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 21:06 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Many trusted kernel hackers feel that kdbus -in its current incarnation- feel that kdbus does one or more of the following:
  * Needs more work to meet the quality standards for such a major new system
  * Doesn't actually solve a problem that needs solving (Analysis of benchmarks presented in the 4.1 kdbus merge request thread showing 2x speedup over userspace DBUS revealed trivially achievable 10x speedups in the code used by the benchmarking code. If it's "clear" that the 2x speedup by moving to kernelspace is enough for the folks that "need" kdbus, then it's clear that the trivially achievable 10x speedup from cleaning up the DBUS libs would be preferable. Why? It keeps a controversial, complex patchset out of the kernel, AND it gives DBUS users 5x more performance.)
  * Might have actually serious security issues
  * Could be more simply expressed using existing kernel primitives, or small reworks of existing primitives
  * Will probably straitjacket future container generalization work (Several folks working on kernel container stuff mentioned several currently-used-in-the-field container strategies where the kdbus design would absolutely not work. The kdbus people's response was effectively "Oh. That's too bad. That's not how you're supposed to use containers, anyway." (One of the affected projects is CRIU: http://criu.org/Main_Page ) )
  The dismissive attitude taken towards the LKML community by everyone who has been banned from the LKML for being too argumentative, abrasive, and handwavey in regards to their own errors (read: pretty much everyone on the kdbus project who's not Greg K.H.) is extremely disturbing.
  kdbus might be cool.
  It's not clear that it's actually required. (The new-and-improved C library for interfacing with DBUS was only made stable *AFTER* the 4.1 merge window closed. This is the same API that (according to the kdbus people) solves the userspace perf issues in the kdbus vs. DBUS benchmark revealed during the 4.1 merge discussion. NOONE has been able to use this API before Linux 4.1, so the folks clamoring for kdbus for speed reasons will probably be satisfied with rewriting their software to target this new lib.).
  It's not clear that it's correctly designed.
  It's not even remotely clear that the *real* maintainers of the software will listen to outside criticism and requests for bug fixes or redesigns.
5. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Does anyone else swap the word "systemd" for "kdbus" and reach similar conclusions?
6. Re:kdbus, where are you? by F.Ultra · 2015-07-06 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  systemd is not in the kernel, it's part of userspace.
7. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Endymion · 2015-07-06 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's not clear that it's actually required.
  
  It's worse than that - not only is it not clear that it's actually required, I (and other) want to know why they aren't just writing a simple userland library that uses TIPC, which is already in the kernel. Even if there was some legitimate reason to need a kdbus-like feature that that wasn't already supported by TIPC, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to extend that existing, already debugged code and extend TIPC with the that feature?
  
  --
  Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
8. Re:kdbus, where are you? by segedunum · 2015-07-06 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, I'm afraid they're holding off for an awful lot longer than that if kdbus isn't basically redesigned and criticisms are addressed. Greg simply doesn't get to decide this no matter how highly Linus rates him, and his reputation is taking a bit of a pounding with some of the bizarre messages he's been posting.
9. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  At this point in time, kdbus is looking like those NSA continuation bills. Just keep presenting it with superficial changes until a inattentive moment presents itself.
  One just wonder how much social karma Greg is willing to burn on the issue...
10. Re:kdbus, where are you? by segedunum · 2015-07-06 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's part of the same clusterfuck though, and for some reason the systemd people are convinced that kdbus is necessary to solve all of their problems......whatever they are.
11. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  systemd is not in the kernel, it's part of userspace.
  No, userspace is over there.
  Systemd is in loserspace.
12. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly, NIH syndrome is strong with folks who:
  * Work on the Gnome project
  * Work at RedHat
  After all, it's "easier" to begin writing your own code than it is to understand someone else's crufty-but-complete solution to the same problem. (Not to mention which one looks better on a resume or end-of-year performance review!)
13. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Tough+Love · 2015-07-06 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  +1 clueful
  mod up please
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
14. Re:kdbus, where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  kdbus, ain't nobody got time for that!
Uh, it's mostly headers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:58 · Score: 0

Heh-heh.
He said, header.
1. Re:Uh, it's mostly headers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  huhuhuhuh... head.. huhuhuhuh..
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hmm by behrooz0az · 2015-07-05 17:31 · Score: 1

I'd use firefox as OS and chromium as browser

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
1. Re:Hmm by behrooz0az · 2015-07-05 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Shit, wrong thread, sorry. would be a nice joke for the other thread:|
  
  --
  Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
Whoa! Cool! A kernel that does everything! by fustakrakich · 2015-07-05 17:56 · Score: 1

Does it still fit on a DVD?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:Whoa! Cool! A kernel that does everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  I want my Slackware floppies back...
2. Re: Whoa! Cool! A kernel that does everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Double layer, but it's tight.
Fuck a 5hiT by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 20:04 · Score: -1

progre3s. Any TO HAVE TO DECIDE
42 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:18 · Score: 0

It's the answer.
Boot drive size by tepples · 2015-07-06 03:07 · Score: 1

This is what modules do for e.g. PCI devices. You can compile them all, and only the ones that are detected will get actually loaded.
Yet the unused modules in a generic kernel are still occupying space on the boot drive. For a smaller flash-based system, this can become significant. Even on an HDD-based system, more modules loaded before the file system comes up means more time to load the initial RAM disk.
1. Re:Boot drive size by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yet the unused modules in a generic kernel are still occupying space on the boot drive.
  The modules don't need to be stored on the boot drive. Anything necessary to mount drives and any non-removable devices should be compiled into the kernel. Anything beyond that can be located on another drive, another partition, a network share, etc.
  
  For a smaller flash-based system
  This kind of machine is more likely to be something purpose-built, rather than a general-use system that needs to support arbitrary hardware being added to it. Just compile the drivers into the kernel, rather than producing any modules. The thing probably only has a few tens of MB of flash space anyhow.
  
  Even on an HDD-based system, more modules loaded before the file system comes up means more time to load the initial RAM disk.
  The last time I played a lot with kernel compilation was about 10 years ago, using hardware that was probably 3-5 years old at the time. While your statement is true strictly speaking, it didn't make a practical difference in the boot time then, and it would make even less of a difference now. 5 seconds on hardware from circa 2000 is a drop in the bucket.
The concept of generic kernels by tepples · 2015-07-06 09:15 · Score: 1

Anything necessary to mount drives and any non-removable devices should be compiled into the kernel.
Which would make for a pretty big generic kernel if it has to handle every possible bus through which bootable storage can be accessed, and through which the decryption password can be entered, on every PC since the Pentium II.

For a smaller flash-based system
This kind of machine is more likely to be something purpose-built
I was sort of referring to tablets and tablet-laptops, which are likely to come with an internal SSD as small as 16 to 32 GB, or to bootable USB flash drives.

Just compile the drivers into the kernel, rather than producing any modules.
The drivers for which system? Or are you referring to abandoning the concept of a binary "generic kernel" in favor of recompiling the kernel for each machine on which it will be used, every time it is installed or updated?
Ubuntu Support plans? by billstewart · 2015-07-06 18:42 · Score: 1

While we're talking about monoliths, I don't usually build my Linuxes from scratch - I either use Ubuntu, or occasionally a Red Hat version, or sometime soon one of those cloud-vm-thingies. (I also run Raspberry Pi, but I don't expect it to have a full-sized kernel.) So when will Ubuntu start supporting the newer kernels? 15.10, or some updates to 15.04?

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks